Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of power management software suites


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to PC power management. There's no clear consensus between delete and merge, but this is a viable AtD and the delete !votes don't put forth a case for why it shouldn't be merged. Star  Mississippi  01:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of power management software suites

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Has the same problems as the article deleted at Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * delete as blatant transgression of WP:NOTGUIDE. PC Magazine and its ilk exist for a reason. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software,  and Lists. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 04:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my vote at the Excel add-ons AfD : WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and a list of a niche topic where only one entry appears potentially notable (PowerMAN), making it hard to think of any WP:LSC which would work for an article like this. I also have a more general argument against these comparisons at all, which I wrote up in length at the XMPP comparisons AfD, but I don't think that's needed here as this one doesn't establish notability. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 18:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to PC power management as per below. I don't believe this content justifies a standalone article but see no problem with it being on the PC power management page so long as we limit it to software that can be established as having been discussed in independent sources. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per my reason on previous Afd. These comparisons don't serve a useful purpose and some niche products which is a false argument. We can very long discussion I'm sure.   scope_creep Talk  16:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because the table is knowledge. It can always be improved by adding more products and references. In the meantime, it could be valuable to someone. (Projectjennifer (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC))
 * Delete, blatant WP:NOTGUIDE violation and WP:GNG failure, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep this mess of original research. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Techcruft. Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mainly !voting in reaction to people citing WP:NOTGUIDE. If that's justification for deletion here, it would apply to all of our many, many "comparison of" articles. Does this particular type of software need a comparison is the question, making it about perhaps notability and WP:NOPAGE, but not WP:NOT. To that end, this would also be entirely reasonable to just merge into PC power management, which isn't exactly busting at the seams. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They are split out their originating articles, back in the day.   scope_creep Talk  00:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge - to PC power management. Maybe I'm wrong in this line of thinking, but this type of "Comparison of..." article is a list, albeit one with a specific purpose which is to compare one item in the list against the others within the same list. As a list article, it falls under WP:NLIST, so the question is: do reliable sources discuss this list as a group? From what I can find, the answer appears to be "no". I do disagree that WP:NOTGUIDE applies here, because I read each of the bullet points there and none of them describe what is happening in this article. If someone can find reliable sources that show that these suites are notable as a group outside of PC power management then maybe a keep is warranted, but I couldn't find any. I would say delete, but I think merging it into the parent article is a good alternative to deletion in that the issue is its notability as a standalone list; merging it solves that issue without deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In general I think merging to PC power management could be a reasonable outcome here. My main holdup is the selection criteria—I'm not sure that any of these programs have been discussed in general by reliable independent sources except for PowerMAN, and I'm also pretty sure the list can't be exhaustive (there probably aren't a lot of major enterprise programs doing this, but without a criteria for what to include, there are a lot of random GitHub and Sorceforge projects that could claim to be listed). If there's good criteria for saying which products get included in the grid (that doesn't exclude all but one entry) I'd support merging over deleting. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 05:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The criteria you're referring to, WP:LSC, is part of Stand-alone lists. If it was merged into the parent article, it would no longer be a stand-alone list. However, even if we were to apply WP:LSC, it doesn't say that the sources need be independent, only that they are reliable. The sources present in the table meet that criteria; there are no WP:OR concerns. If the concern is what suites to include, I'm sure that could be refined to something as simple as "is the software discussed in third-party reliable sources?" I can find the EZ GPO software being discussed, but that creates a standard that not every random GitHub project can meet. - Aoidh (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah exactly, my concern is that I think we should have some way of saying what belongs in the list/comparison (and I'll admit, it's less indie projects and more corporate UPE shilling that worries me there). I realize there aren't as stringent standards around article contents but wanted to ensure the spirit of them is still applied if we move this. I think ensuring it's being discussed by at least one reliable third-party source is good enough, and it seems like at least EZ GPO and PowerMan apply here, so I see decent enough reason to support merging as an ATD. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 23:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.